Is it wrong if you want to know a partners or potential partner's biological/original gender?

[DallasApple]

So you do not have the right to have sex?

Absolutely not.I mean i have the 'right' to masturbate.And please don't split hairs here.I do not have the "right" that someone agrees to have sex with me.

 

[McBell]

Absolutely not.I mean i have the 'right' to masturbate.And please don't split hairs here.I do not have the "right" that someone agrees to have sex with me.

Having the right to have sex does not mean that you get to have sex with who ever you want, where ever you want.

There are a lot of rules and regulations to your right to have sex.
Just like there are rules and regulations to your right to masturbate.

 

[DallasApple]

Having the right to have sex does not mean that you get to have sex with who ever you want, where ever you want.

There are a lot of rules and regulations to your right to have sex.
Just like there are rules and regulations to your right to masturbate.

I understand Mestemia..but I'm not OBLIGATED to have sex with everyone.I get to choose consent.IOW for example you do not have the RIGHT to have sex with me.(and vice versa)..How I would try to convince you to have sex with me? Yes is a right within the guidlines of law.If you agree fine..if not(you will not have sex with me) you have not violated my rights by NOT having sex with me..I do not have a RIGHT to have sex with you...

 

[McBell]

I understand Mestemia..but I'm not OBLIGATED to have sex with everyone.I get to choose consent.IOW for example you do not have the RIGHT to have sex with me.(and vice versa)..How I would try to convince you to have sex with me? Yes is a right within the guidlines of law.If you agree fine..if not(you will not have sex with me) you have not violated my rights by NOT having sex with me..I do not have a RIGHT to have sex with you...

split hairs much?

 

[DallasApple]

split hairs much?

YEP ...when its time to i do..

 

[Koldo]

I think she's normal. I think she should have just as much freedom as Tom to engage in one night stands as he is. Tom didn't disclose that he would freak out over a transgendered sexual encounter. She should have to disclose that she's a transgendered woman.

Not having as much ''freedom'' does not make her abnormal.

You said she wasn't a female.

Not exactly what i said.

Still looking to see how. But go on wit yo bad self.

He didn't say she must carry the burden of responsibility for sexual encounters based on transphobia.

That's how.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

They would probably tell me to stop going on forums and asking my kids if they would have sex with a transexual.

You can do whatever you want. But you're just as culpable of having your arguments critiqued as much as mine.

No Heather...because I do not believe having sex with someone one night stand or other wise is a 'right" to begin with.Its a priveledge.

I disagree. Adults have a right across the board. Tom and Shirley had a one night stand, and they both had the right to engage in it. I'll ask where the "right" turns into a privilege. My understanding is that your position is one where Tom has the "right" to know about Shirley's transgendered status, and that Shirley's desire to have sex on a one night stand is a "privilege".

Do you disagree? If you do, then what do you mean that having sex on a one night stand is a privilege?

Oh well..if I am at least transphobe and bigot doesn't mean Im a bad person.It may only mean I'm an ignorant retard.And I have ignorant retarted kids.

I guess me and my children are very very very nice bigots.Might even risk our lives to save a transexaul because that isnt in the equation of saving lives..life is life..BUT our bigotry shows that we prefer not to have sex with a transexual because we are stupid ignorant bigot tards who don't consider trans people, just deviants.

You have a way right now of avoiding discussion when things aren't really going your way, playing the victim card by thinking I'm attacking you, and misrepresenting an argument here. My approach has been critiqueing and supporting ideas and positions, not people. But you're not doing yourself any favors by attempting to paint my arguments in that I'm attacking you and your family. You said it before that you felt attacked, and I personally have been very mindful about making sure that what I critique has been the argument. Not you.

Otherwise, this debate will continue to spiral down into you trying your best to paint yourself as a victim here. If I have said anything about you or your family, and I have actually called you and your family "stupid, ignorant, bigot tards", then please be so kind to actually point out where I actually said that. Otherwise, like I told another member earlier in the thread, if you are projecting yourself into what I am critiqueing and taking what I say personally, that's not my problem unless you actually cite posts where I attacked you and your family.

If you would join the converation again, please do so (and it would be considerate if you addressed the entirety of my posts, rather than cherry pick a single statement here and there). Otherwise, I have nothing more to say to you specifically in this debate.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not having as much ''freedom'' does not make her abnormal.

Why quotation marks? I believe Shirley should have as many rights and freedoms as Tom. Do you agree?

Not exactly what i said.

Did you say she wasn't a woman?

He didn't say she must carry the burden of responsibility for sexual encounters based on transphobia.

That's how.

I guess we disagree on what "large numbers of people" and the argument of prevalence in a society actually means. I do recognize transphobia in the society. What would you call large numbers of people not wanting to engage with a transgendered person on any particular level that makes them human?

We can talk about working with them, going to school with them, having them as a teacher, having them as adoptive parents, having them as a boss or a business owner, and yes....having sex with them. All these instances mean they are fully engaged in society as human beings as much as cis-gendered.

So if somebody argues that a lot of people very well might not want to engage with a transgendered person on a particular level, if it is not transphobia, what would you call it?

 

[Koldo]

Why quotation marks? I believe Shirley should have as many rights and freedoms as Tom. Do you agree?

Because i don't consider that matter to count as a kind of freedom.

Did you say she wasn't a woman?

Yes, i did.

I guess we disagree on what "large numbers of people" and the argument of prevalence in a society actually means. I do recognize transphobia in the society. What would you call large numbers of people not wanting to engage with a transgendered person on any particular level that makes them human?

We can talk about working with them, going to school with them, having them as a teacher, having them as adoptive parents, having them as a boss or a business owner, and yes....having sex with them. All these instances mean they are fully engaged in society as human beings as much as cis-gendered.

So if somebody argues that a lot of people very well might not want to engage with a transgendered person on a particular level, if it is not transphobia, what would you call it?

I don't have any particular name for that.

A lot of people also wouldn't want to have sex with a person they consider to be very ugly ( I am not saying that trans women are ugly ). What do you call that? Uglyphobia?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ugh, you have to pardon me with that. The Finnish word 'sukupuoli' refers to both mental and physical. It messes my english definition up every now and then.

All in all, I see both parties as guilty for their miserable fates. Tom should've been more careful, and Shirley should've told. Because Tom wasn't careful, he got laid with someone he (for whatever reason) did not want. Because Shirley decided it was a brilliant idea to withdraw crucial information from a random dude, she got yelled at.

For a one night stand, why is it crucial? If Tom and Shirley had a more serious and long term goal in mind, then yes it is crucial and can end up making things worse the longer it is kept secret.
But we are talking about two people who meet, go home, screw, and would probably maybe only occasionally bump into eachother, if even that just depending on the circumstances of how they met. But they were both in the moment, had their fun, and now it's Shirley's fault because she is supposed to carry around a sign that says she isn't really a woman.

I would do that with an used car too.
I don't need to do that with a brand new car though.

You should. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's free of problems.

I worded it deliberately, she has taken great efforts to reinvent herself, to be reborn. And in doing so she has done her best to disguise traces of what she once was. From her perspective perhaps 'the old her no longer exists' but it is something that is relevant to him and while she cannot be expected to know what is relevant to HIM, she can be expected to know that it is a relevant factor for a significant proportion of potential partners.

This recognises that it is at least relatively common correct? That means that we can have a reasonable expectation that she is aware that this is something of importance to a large number of people. Thus she is withholding information she has good reason to believe might be pertinent.

Why can't she just be normal and have one night stands like any other woman?

Yes, he was ignorant of the fact that she was transgendered, then he became aware of it and was angry about being misled in part because of his own preconceptions and assumptions and in part because she has intentionally looked to conceal evidence that she was born male and he would have good reason to believe that she was aware that a large proportion of people would find transgender to be a relevant factor that might affect their informed consent for sexual relations.

You're making it sound as if she had intent to deceive him.

So get back to me when the government legislates or the judiciary rules that a person can NOT (edit I initially forgot the not lol) have a preference not to have sex with a transgender individual (as occurred to stop spousal abuse), as a result of shifting social norms. At the moment as you yourself noted, it is not uncommon for people to not desire to have sex with transgender indivudals, she can reasonably be expected to realise this and therefore know that it is a relevant peice of information.

Typically, rights and recognition are gained when people who know they should know there place refuse to accept it. This also goes to show my point that we are expected to yield on our womanhood because someone may become upset. You admit this is a social norm, and I see a social norm that should be changed. And if you can't handle yourself, especially over a one-night stand, then honestly I don't care. Yes, it is sex which is a very personal thing. But to us it is sex, we have needs, and we are women. Why should Shirley be expected to yield to Tom when it may be one of the very few times she has gotten to have anything close to a normal woman's experience? Even if she passes 100%, why should she be expected to put her womanhood on hold? Just because someone who didn't take the time to get to know her may have a problem with it?

The sentence structure leaves me a little unclear what you are attempting to state, but basically yes he might have slept with such individuals in the past, he might be willing to have sex with them in the future or he might have a preference not to. I really do not know where you are going with this.

I am saying that pretty much any definition of woman Tom could give he has slept with other women who wouldn't fill it. I will admit I have assumed much in Tom's reaction, but what I have is more of a typical experience. Tom can reasonably be expected to be humiliated by friends, he will probably feel emasculated, and he probably does not view Shirley as a woman. It's assumed, but it's not at all an uncommon scenario. Men tend to get so worked up over if a woman is "really a woman" or not that there exist a myriad of myths that are supposed to allow you to more easily guess your date's sex, but these markers overlap and put many "real women" into the "man in a dress" category.

I agree, a significant problem both for those people individually, their family and friends as well as indicative of limitations of current acceptance (and even merely tolerance) in society.

And instead of yielding, why should it not be changed?

I agree that casual sex is dangerous and in all honesty stupid; on the other hand, she has intentionally acted so as to limit his informed consent in an area she has sufficient reason to be aware is relevant to the decision whether or not to have sex to a relatively sizeable portion of society. There is no point getting angry with the snake, but there is good reason to get angry with the person who told you it was actually a well crafted sculpture - taking it out and demonstrating that it did not move and after when you touched it you were bitten.

But why should she care? Why should she be expected to yield on a one-night encounter? Why should she not be able to reasonable expect that people who have one night stands are mature enough to deal with the consequences?

Tom's hissy fit is a preference not to have sex with transgender females, perhaps you have sexual preferences, perhaps you would prefer not to have sex with younger men, or older women, or people who smell, or people who cry in bed or... not everything is about transgender women being 'less'.

Then he should get to know his partners better if he has a hang up like that. If he has a preference, that's cool. Getting upset over and angry at someone who is not at fault is what makes him a bigot.

Actually, all we are told is that he didnt want to have sex with her again and that he did not approach her we are not told why, you have assumed it is because he is bigotted. It could be because he is confused over what happened and its implications, it could be because he is embarrassed by some aspect of how he treated her (not with regards to the sex neccessarily but anything about the situation), it could be because he is angry with her not for being transgendered but because she denied him the ability to give informed consent. Or, it could be that he is a bigot.

Yes, I assumed alot. But what I also assumed is a very common thing. To many people it's considered a very embarrassing thing to really do anything with a transwoman. If she told people, she could reasonable expect a non existent sex life.

 

[Koldo]

You should. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's free of problems.

I could do that, but i don't have to.
If the vendor sells it as a new car it has to come with all the parts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because i don't consider that matter to count as a kind of freedom.

So Shirley should be expected to not have be having one night stands then, and giving up a part of a normal life because others may be upset? It used to be socially normal and acceptable for parents to keep their mentally and/or physically handicapped children in the attic, closest, or wherever guests would not see them. It was reasonably expected to be that way, and someone may get upset over those weird looks, behaviors, and sounds. That freedoms of the individual who was being violated didn't matter, but it was a "freedom" for those who couldn't handle it to be free from it.

 

[Koldo]

So Shirley should be expected to not have be having one night stands then, and giving up a part of a normal life because others may be upset?

No. Not at all.

It used to be socially normal and acceptable for parents to keep their mentally and/or physically handicapped children in the attic, closest, or wherever guests would not see them. It was reasonably expected to be that way, and someone may get upset over those weird looks, behaviors, and sounds. That freedoms of the individual who was being violated didn't matter, but it was a "freedom" for those who couldn't handle it to be free from it.

Obviously the two situations are completely comparable on all degrees.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Because i don't consider that matter to count as a kind of freedom.

Freedom to engage in one night stands as fully presenting female, who is attracted to males, and a fully presenting male who is attracted to females, had a one night stand and they enjoyed themselves. The only difference between the two is that one is cis and one is trans. If one is argued to have more freedom than another (meaning that if Tom is not obligated to tell Shirley he is cis, but Shirley is obligated to tell Tom that she is trans), I see that as inequality. One has more freedom than the other.

Yes, i did.

It has been brought to your attention time and again the research behind the error of your perspective. I disagree with your assessment.

I don't have any particular name for that.

It certainly is a cultural phenomenon, though, and one that you have argued to be significant in the story as to how Shirley should act. I call it transphobia. What do you call it? Normal? Healthy? Ideal? We both agree that it is typical, but one may call it fair while another may call it unfair. I argue the latter, and I'm asking how you would attribute the phenomenon.

A lot of people also wouldn't want to have sex with a person they consider to be very ugly ( I am not saying that trans women are ugly ). What do you call that? Uglyphobia?

Nice try. LOL

Let's inject that scenario into the OP. Tom gets drunk and sleeps with a woman who he would typically find extremely unattractive. Let's say he gets angry at her for misleading him, that he feels violated, that he feels deceived by a woman who should know better than to mislead him into thinking that she's beautiful.

See anything wrong with this picture? Tom's got some serious issues if he thinks it's Shirley's fault for not being attractive.

 

[Leftimies]

For a one night stand, why is it crucial? If Tom and Shirley had a more serious and long term goal in mind, then yes it is crucial and can end up making things worse the longer it is kept secret.
But we are talking about two people who meet, go home, screw, and would probably maybe only occasionally bump into eachother, if even that just depending on the circumstances of how they met. But they were both in the moment, had their fun, and now it's Shirley's fault because she is supposed to carry around a sign that says she isn't really a woman.



Yeah, one-night-stand is just a silly and ignorant practice IMO. For many practical reasons. STDs, heightened focus on sex instead of personality, neglecting the reasons why sexuality even exists in the first place (reproduction), etc. In general, its ignorant practice that deludes people.

Now if you have to get satisfaction without commitment...masturbation is far more viable practice for releasing sexual tension it has no dire consequences for other people, so its morally risk-free.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. Not at all.

Obviously the two situations are completely comparable on all degrees.

Yes, they are, as they are both instances in which someone is expected to unfairly yield to feelings of someone who may be upset, for no more reason than they are upset by something they shouldn't be.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For a one night stand, why is it crucial? If Tom and Shirley had a more serious and long term goal in mind, then yes it is crucial and can end up making things worse the longer it is kept secret.
But we are talking about two people who meet, go home, screw, and would probably maybe only occasionally bump into eachother, if even that just depending on the circumstances of how they met. But they were both in the moment, had their fun, and now it's Shirley's fault because she is supposed to carry around a sign that says she isn't really a woman.


You should. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's free of problems.


Why can't she just be normal and have one night stands like any other woman?


You're making it sound as if she had intent to deceive him.


Typically, rights and recognition are gained when people who know they should know there place refuse to accept it. This also goes to show my point that we are expected to yield on our womanhood because someone may become upset. You admit this is a social norm, and I see a social norm that should be changed. And if you can't handle yourself, especially over a one-night stand, then honestly I don't care. Yes, it is sex which is a very personal thing. But to us it is sex, we have needs, and we are women. Why should Shirley be expected to yield to Tom when it may be one of the very few times she has gotten to have anything close to a normal woman's experience? Even if she passes 100%, why should she be expected to put her womanhood on hold? Just because someone who didn't take the time to get to know her may have a problem with it?


I am saying that pretty much any definition of woman Tom could give he has slept with other women who wouldn't fill it. I will admit I have assumed much in Tom's reaction, but what I have is more of a typical experience. Tom can reasonably be expected to be humiliated by friends, he will probably feel emasculated, and he probably does not view Shirley as a woman. It's assumed, but it's not at all an uncommon scenario. Men tend to get so worked up over if a woman is "really a woman" or not that there exist a myriad of myths that are supposed to allow you to more easily guess your date's sex, but these markers overlap and put many "real women" into the "man in a dress" category.


And instead of yielding, why should it not be changed?


But why should she care? Why should she be expected to yield on a one-night encounter? Why should she not be able to reasonable expect that people who have one night stands are mature enough to deal with the consequences?



Then he should get to know his partners better if he has a hang up like that. If he has a preference, that's cool. Getting upset over and angry at someone who is not at fault is what makes him a bigot.


Yes, I assumed alot. But what I also assumed is a very common thing. To many people it's considered a very embarrassing thing to really do anything with a transwoman. If she told people, she could reasonable expect a non existent sex life.

SW, just want to let you know that I hear you. I hear you loud and clear, and I support you and your right to happiness and fulfillment. You exist. You are real. You are not obligated to yield to what current society's expectations have for you. You have other allies in this world, and I will keep fighting for your equality and your freedom along with my daughter, who has been educating me and introducing me to her trans friends who feel safe and valued when they are with her.

I'm still learning myself, but I hear your story. And because I hear you, you have my support. :flower:

 

[Revoltingest]

My questions:

1. Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?
2. Should Shirley be obligated to tell Tom her birth gender before consent?
3. Is it wrong for cisgender individuals to only prefer other cisgender individuals, to the exclusion of transgender people?

If you could explain why you answered the way that you did, that would be helpful.

1) He is neither right nor wrong. His preference is what it is.
2) She should inform him because she would be aware of the widespread
objection men would have to boinking a transgendered woman.
3) See answer to #1.

This is unfair to Shirley. But it's a kind of unfairness similar to physical attractiveness,
religion, race, height, weight, hair color, infection status, etc. Society generally
accepts these unfairnesses as normal.
Regarding the duty to notify issue, there is a parallel in real estate brokerage. If I sell
you a home, I have a legal duty to notify you of anything which would concern you,
even if that concern is irrational, eg, there was a grisly murder in the home once.
Some people might suffer emotional trauma if they discovered this after moving in.

 

[Koldo]

Freedom to engage in one night stands as fully presenting female, who is attracted to males, and a fully presenting male who is attracted to females, had a one night stand and they enjoyed themselves. The only difference between the two is that one is cis and one is trans. If one is argued to have more freedom than another (meaning that if Tom is not obligated to tell Shirley he is cis, but Shirley is obligated to tell Tom that she is trans), I see that as inequality. One has more freedom than the other.

It is so because they are in different situations.

It has been brought to your attention time and again the research behind the error of your perspective. I disagree with your assessment.

You are free to do so.
I would just like to mention that no research has been presented to me that specifically states in its conclusion that CAIS are women on regards to sex. All sources presented to me previously loaded the word with a particular meaning beforehand.

It certainly is a cultural phenomenon, though, and one that you have argued to be significant in the story as to how Shirley should act. I call it transphobia. What do you call it? Normal? Healthy? Ideal? We both agree that it is typical, but one may call it fair while another may call it unfair. I argue the latter, and I'm asking how you would attribute the phenomenon.

Neither fair nor unfair.

Nice try. LOL

Let's inject that scenario into the OP. Tom gets drunk and sleeps with a woman who he would typically find extremely unattractive. Let's say he gets angry at her for misleading him, that he feels violated, that he feels deceived by a woman who should know better than to mislead him into thinking that she's beautiful.

See anything wrong with this picture? Tom's got some serious issues if he thinks it's Shirley's fault for not being attractive.

He got drunk willingly, correct?
He willingly did something that screwed up his own perception. She didn't omit anything.

Besides, you missed the point. If Tom rejected to have sex with her because she is ugly, would that count as a phobia?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For a one night stand, why is it crucial? If Tom and Shirley had a more serious and long term goal in mind, then yes it is crucial and can end up making things worse the longer it is kept secret.
But we are talking about two people who meet, go home, screw, and would probably maybe only occasionally bump into eachother, if even that just depending on the circumstances of how they met. But they were both in the moment, had their fun, and now it's Shirley's fault because she is supposed to carry around a sign that says she isn't really a woman.



Yeah, one-night-stand is just a silly and ignorant practice IMO. For many practical reasons. STDs, heightened focus on sex instead of personality, neglecting the reasons why sexuality even exists in the first place (reproduction), etc. In general, its ignorant practice that deludes people.

I don't have an ethical problem with one-night stands. So long as it's consensual, nobody is getting forced into anything, and protection against STDs and pregnancy is being used.

Now if you have to get satisfaction without commitment...masturbation is far more viable practice for releasing sexual tension it has no dire consequences for other people, so its morally risk-free.

I agree!